|
Post by BertramStantrous on Oct 17, 2003 10:45:56 GMT -5
This was originally posted by me on the Civil HQ.
On the issue of free speech: Let's take an example. Say that Joe Blow decides to go over to Washington DC, and then decides to incite a riot in front of the capitol building by telling all the surrounding people to violently overthrow the administration. He rants and yells about it, hoping people around him will listen to his angry words and follow his lead. What happens? He is arrested. Freedom of speech is one thing, but telling your fellow citizens to commit malicious acts is frowned upon in any nation, even the United States, a so-called bastion of democracy. The same goes for people that go into a crowded movie theater and shout "fire!" and end up getting people trampled to death. Our insurgent friends have been carrying out the equivilent of this by sending people telegrams saying "Francos Spain is considering banning you for treason." This is the reason you people are being banned. Remember this the next time you read one of Jesse James's pieces of spam.
|
|
|
Post by Alantino on Oct 26, 2003 2:55:15 GMT -5
Well, as emperor of the Republic of Alantino, i really have no power when it comes down to freedom of domestic speech. That's for the senate to decide.
But on a personal level, i believe in freedom of speech with restrictions, such as what you were stating.
Joseph Anthony Marzullo Emperor of the Republic of Alantino
|
|
|
Post by Lesser Cambodia on Oct 27, 2003 21:11:50 GMT -5
Such examples are very tragic and completely feasible, but I believe that the good of complete freedom of expression outweighs the negatives that such a freedom presents. Censorship breeds resentment, which will inevitably manifest itself in a more dangerous and unsavory form than the comparably minor consequences of unrestrained speech. Either side of the argument has its pros and cons, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by BertramStantrous on Oct 28, 2003 3:53:03 GMT -5
I'll remember that next time I yell "He's got a gun!" on a crowded street, Cambodia.
|
|
|
Post by bjornburg on Oct 30, 2003 2:16:16 GMT -5
I feel that there needs to be some restrictions/limitations to what is acceptable speech.
Total freedom of speech is a nice concept on paper, but unfortunately does not work in practice, due to some people not being prepared to handle the responsibility and abusing the privilege.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Oct 30, 2003 13:54:36 GMT -5
I feel that there needs to be some restrictions/limitations to what is acceptable speech. Total freedom of speech is a nice concept on paper, but unfortunately does not work in practice, due to some people not being prepared to handle the responsibility and abusing the privilege. We find that what is unfortunately overlooked in freedom of speech are standards. With the complete absence of standards (right and wrong, whatevery you'd like to call them) it becomes permissable for people to put others in danger with their words. In any civil society, words can be just as harmful as weapons. In that sense, it becomes necessary to protect each other from those that maliciously use their right to speech, either via threats, lies, or other similar offenses. Consider that slander is the verbal equivelent of libel (or is it the other way around?). Freedom of speech is essential to democracy, but as in any good republic, majority rule must be tempered with minority right.
|
|
|
Post by Lesser Cambodia on Oct 31, 2003 18:23:30 GMT -5
Well-said, Abysseria. Freedom of speech and freedom from offense must be carefully balanced indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Abysseria on Nov 2, 2003 16:00:23 GMT -5
Well-said, Abysseria. Freedom of speech and freedom from offense must be carefully balanced indeed. And for all those that have complained about the Pacific, there are no rules in the Senate which prevent you from speaking your mind politely, and with reason. It is offense that is regulated.
|
|
|
Post by Poochtopia on Nov 6, 2003 22:57:50 GMT -5
Freedom of Speech is a great thing...just as long as you don't say anything bad about your country...then we have a prob.....Hear in Poochtopia we let our people say what ever they want......just don't say it the wrong way and you are fine.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on May 29, 2004 6:06:39 GMT -5
Not necro posting. This subject has reared its head in the WP and I was interested to see what the general view is here, now. I would've started another thread but I wouldn't wish to inspire the fury of Comrade Bertram since there is already a perfectly good one 5 months old here.
It began with Comrade Bertram's analogy of a man shouting fire in a movie theatre in a prior thread. Someone finds us interesting enough to pore over our library given we broached this some time ago. I found it interesting that a recurring theme of anything is acceptable is being brought forward in one way or another several times. Posted was this defence by the ACLU:
THREE REASONS WHY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS ESSENTIAL TO A FREE SOCIETY It's the foundation of self-fulfillment. The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself -- and as such, deserves society's greatest protection.
It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The eminent 19th-century writer and civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" or socially harmful -- should be represented in society's "marketplace of ideas."
It's necessary to our system of self-government and gives the American people a "checking function" against government excess and corruption. If the American people are to be the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.
I would agree in portions but I also recognize it is a double edged sword. Allowing patently false ideas to propogate unchecked is also a breeding ground for Oppression and Tyranny. One need only look at the National Socialist platform in the 30's with regards to Jews to support that view.
End result is how much is too much?
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on May 29, 2004 12:33:23 GMT -5
I agree with you Black Adder. On the whole, I support Freedom of Speech, but there are limits and they are for he better interest of the society as a whole. I do not see any problem with criticizing a leader or a policy, but do so in a manner that is thoughtful and does not equal slander. Also, in matters of national security, I absolutely believe that Freedom of Speech is over-ruled. Thus, my belief is that Freedom of Speech is an important right of everyone, however we each possess the civic duty to exercise that right responsibly.
|
|
|
Post by Black Adder on May 29, 2004 17:49:28 GMT -5
Surrendering partial rights of the individual for the greater good of the society. Exactly. That ironically is the biggest argument against the NPO. Because we have surrendered freedoms we deserve none, they keep quoting that toss pot Benjamin Franklin. Did he own slaves?
|
|
|
Post by Warrior Thorin on May 30, 2004 6:31:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure about Benjamin Franklin, but Thomas Jefferson and several others who were involved in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence did own slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Pierconium on May 31, 2004 2:17:09 GMT -5
Franklin did as well, but he set his free and kept them on as paid servants.
|
|